Hate Crime Essay

Although different variations of a crime may exist, society wonders if the types of victims affected by these crimes have any effect on their court jurisdictions. The 14th amendment to the Constitution clearly states that no person can have unequal protection of the law, but new regulations passed by Congress seem to come into conflict with this idea. As the history of hate crime legislation has progressed, so has the number of people hate crime laws protect. For this matter, many citizens with lawsuits deem these new laws unfair. Interpretations of the law allow a lot of leeway in order to shape legislation to the needs of the plaintiff or victim. General crime legislation serves the purpose of protecting the public, yet only certain motivations of crimes enable the judiciary to assign additional charges to a defendant guilty of a hate crime. The protected rights of citizens are believed to guarantee peace and tranquility. The most recent additions to everyday crime legislation have challenged this peace and created chaos between the supporters and opposers of these changes. Despite the United States developing hate crime legislation that suffices to maintain justice within the judiciary system, numerous legislative experts strongly believe these most recent changes create unnecessary bias.

Criminal offenses against certain groups of minorities have received mixed interpretations, but regardless of the special attention these lawsuits receive, cases almost always commence without the considerations of hate. In a Colorado Springs crime a man called Geremiah Vargas and Marshall Hamilton-Parks “fag” and “faggots” before brutally stabbing them (Steiner). Motivation remains the key to prosecuting Vargas, but circumstances that have n...

... middle of paper ...

...t one murder having more or less impact than another. The addition of hate crime charges does not potentially harm anyone else other than the criminal themselves, but the oppositions of hate crime legislation could have evolved out of jealousy for this supposed unequal advantages. The intimidation of particular groups has become widely known as a wrongful act, yet people surprisingly do not accept victims seeking justice to find peace within themselves by winning their court case. Adding an extra penalty to criminals as they go through the process in court would seem like a benign action to take, yet the idea of providing this advantage does not settle too comfortably in the heads of other non-minority victims. Ordinary criminal laws would seem to meet requirements for victims, yet targets of crimes never cease to get the most out of the loose interpretations of law.